Connectivity to smartphones and other mobile devices is a key strength of QNX Software Systems’ platform for car infotainment systems, and many automakers and tier one automotive suppliers use our platform to implement smartphone/head-unit integration in their vehicles. We have a long-standing partnership with Apple to ensure high-quality connectivity with their devices, and this partnership extends to support for Apple CarPlay.

I think it's fairly obvious that Apple isn't building CarPlay to support non-iOS devices and that they do intend to certify apps made by third party developers (just as they do for Siri and AppleTV).

To me, the bulk of the "strategy" stated above is to have a smart device integrate into a car's head unit to provide communication, navigation, and entertainment rather than use an onboard system that dictates your "choices" by tying BB QNX to Honda or MS SYNC to Ford or Android to Audi. Not that the device provider would themselves provide the universal interface; I would say that is the car manufacturers's responsibility. So... maybe it was inaccurate to say that this is "precisely" Apple's strategy.

The independence of Apple's plan doesn't require them to build compatibility for their competitors; however, the independence is there for the user. Likewise, the auto manufacturer is free to support other systems (which I think is more in tune with the above strategy than your "open source" spin on it.

CarPlay is very much like MirrorLink (which is more "precisely" what you would like but is unlikely to grow more successful or to achieve the level of integration that CarPlay is already achieving) but rather than being restricted by available open standards and MirrorLink's own authorization program for apps, Apple is able to leverage its own Lightning technology and App Store approval process.

All of the cars that demoed CarPlay — when you unplug an iDevice, there is still an in-car entertainment/app system and head unit which may or may not have connectivity compatibility with other smart devices. I think it's foolish and backwards to think that it is the device manufacturer's responsibility rather than the car manufacturer's.

To me, the bulk of the "strategy" stated above is to have a smart device integrate into a car's head unit to provide communication, navigation, and entertainment rather than use an onboard system that dictates your "choices" by tying BB QNX to Honda or MS SYNC to Ford or Android to Audi. Not that the device provider would themselves provide the universal interface; I would say that is the car manufacturers's responsibility.

Well, the biggest issue with this kind of reasoning is what happens when it scales. Sure it's not apple's problem that competing devices don't work with their proprietary interfaces (ignoring that it's probably apple's deliberate intention). Same is true for microsoft or anyone else. Every single vendor of proprietary stuff will say it's not their responsibility to work with others. And so it's always the consumer who looses out when vendors fail to embrace open standards.

Without open standards we get vendor lock, which we should all know from our IT experience is detrimental to the free market. It's incredibly difficult to break out of this state of affairs once we reach it; vendors become forced to adopt solutions based on their popularity rather than on merit or openness.

I don't want my choice of car to conflict with my choice of cell phone or visa versa. It's utterly ridiculous that we shouldn't have vendor neutral standards for these things. But then very few corporations truly have consumer interests at heart.

I'm aware that calls for open technology are often in vein, the corporations who benefit from having proprietary devices and restrictions are the ones in power. But what a shame it is that they collectively hold back innovation outside of their walls. If we don't do anything to stop it now, this consolidation of control is only going to increase over time.

Carplay may be a good interface, but I'll always have objections to it as long as apple dictates how we (users&devs) get to use it.

Your ignoring the most basic difference in strategies for ideological reasons and ignoring that my posts have mainly been to point out that Thom is completing misinterpreting a PR statement to suggest that CarPlay is dependent on QNX.

However, I don't see how there is any way of avoiding the fact that Apple's strategy (using its own device capabilities to make car head units and UI into a thin client versus other strategies who want to integrate their device capabilities directly into the car's head unit) is closer to the goal mentioned above than not. Additionally, I've already pointed out that the actual strategy that you endorse has been around in MirrorLink and other initiatives and is unlikely to succeed. There's no need to call for a OSNews circle jerk to try to develop something that exists; there is a need to overcome the massive forces of capitalism and practicality to make it a reality however.

Nor do I accept your ideology as truism; you should really avoid the absurdity of absolutism in most of your statements. It's not persuasive, it is exactly the opposite.

Carplay may be a good interface, but I'll always have objections to it as long as apple dictates how we (users&devs) get to use it.

No shit, you're a troll. It takes seeing about 3 of your posts to know that.